When Could Oswald Have "Zeroed" (Sighted-In) the Alleged Murder Weapon?

[Jack Nessan]

I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.

Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?

Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.

Some of your fellow lone-gunman theorists put this supposed first miss far earlier than you do, and they offer the unserious speculation that your alleged "sharpshooter" was foolish enough to fire virtually straight down with this shot and, to make matters worse, was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal rod or tree limb was smackdab in the middle of his aiming point or very close to it. Not even an idiotic amateur would commit such a blunder. 

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.

The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him. The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.

At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.

And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?

No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation. 

Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).

You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.

So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.

BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

It continues to genuinely amaze me at how you guys simply refuse to face obvious, undeniable facts. Anyone not blinded by the lone-gunman theory can see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far, far beyond the ability of the alleged lone gunman, and was even beyond the ability of three Master-rated riflemen.

The whole early missed shot hypothesis is unsupported by any witness testimony. The whole shooting test was a complete waste of time. The problem is the Marksmen weren’t duplicating what LHO had actually accomplished. They were trying to duplicate what the media thought had taken place—three shots. LHO only fired twice. Two shots are what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses stated was the number of shots. LHO was not hurried to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds instead LHO aimed for the first shot and then had 5.6 seconds to aim and fire the second shot. The constraint of the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano played no role.

 

This is a perfect example. The first shot by all found the target. After that they were just jacking rounds downrange as fast as they could to try and duplicate a faulty assumption. Nothing more.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette.

But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

The headshot was not a great feat marksmanship; it almost was a missed shot, just that close to missing JFK’s head and possibly hitting SA Kellerman.
 

[Tim Nickerson]

I've answered this silliness several times, but you just keep repeating it and ignoring the problems with it.

Why do you just keep repeating the same inane arguments and ignoring the objections to them?

You're dyslexic, aren't you?

Even the WC didn't buy this bunk, for crying out loud. The WC logically noted that it is unlikely that the gunman would have missed the entire gigantic limousine with his first, closest, and easiest shot. But this is the nonsense you must float to expand your lone gunman's firing time.

The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was the first, second, or third shot which missed. - Report of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, page 111

Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds. - Report of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, page 117

Sigh. . . . Just sigh. . . . No, the jacket bulge is not mythical. No one said it was. But your interpretation of the bulge ignores science and ignores Connally's own adamant insistence that he was not hit before Z231 and that the moment of impact was Z234, which gels perfectly with what we see in the Zapruder film when Connally's right shoulder is slammed downward, a clearly pained expression comes over his face, and his hair becomes disheveled starting in Z238.

Connally was not always adamant that he was not hit at the same time as Kennedy.

The bulge was simply the result of Connally turning to look behind him. 

You are the king of ridiculous explanations. Connally wasn't turning to look behind him at Z224. He was actually in the process of turning to face forward after having turned to look behind him. Lattimer replicated the forward jacket bulge in one of his tests. Your explanation is laughable.

The bulge disappears by Z228 when Connally is facing straight ahead again, still holding his hat in his right hand, and showing no indication whatsoever that a bullet just ripped through his chest, smashed 5 inches of rib bone, and shattered the distal radius bone in his right wrist.

You were saying? 

At "about Z223"? When, when, when are you guys going to deal with the scientific fact, admitted by two of your leading wound ballistics experts, that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? When? Anytime this century? You guys really seem to think that if you just dismiss scientific fact that refutes your theory, that fact will somehow go away--at least in your minds.

About Z223.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/about_2

a little more or less than; a little before or after

synonym: approximately

nearly; very close to

The only wound ballistics experts that I've ever referred to are Martin Fackler, Larry Sturdivan, and Vincent DiMaio. Which of those two admitted that JFK's Z225 reaction proves he must have been hit no later than Z221? Lattimer was not actually a wound ballistics expert.

The average reflex reaction time to physical stimulus is 150 milliseconds. 150 milliseconds is equivalent to 2.745 Zapruder frames.

And, while you're at it, how about explaining how a bullet exiting JFK's shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot to nick the knot's outer surface, given that numerous photos prove his tie knot was nearly centered in the middle of his collar band during the motorcade? Humm, how about that?

You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.

Interestingly enough, Lattimer actually replicated the shot through the shirt collar and the nick in the tie knot.

No, they were not. The test reflected the fact that the alleged lone gunman would have had to go two for two on his final two shots in just 5.6 seconds. You can only expand his firing time with zany speculation. 

They absolutely were needlessly rushed. They were told to try to get off their three shots in 5.6 seconds or less. Give your head a shake, you addled bugger.

Yes, I know that Hendrix and Staley fired six shots each. A total of 21 shots were fired in the test: 6 by Hendrix, 6 by Staley, and 9 by Miller, because Miller fired an extra set of shots with the iron sights.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette. But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

So, being generous, i.e., including the shots that hit the center of mass, we can say that they went eight out of 14 on their first two sets of shots, with seven of their eight hits coming in the first set of shots. But, according to you guys, your supposed single assassin missed the entire giant limo with his first and easiest shot, but nailed his second shot, the exact opposite of what the three Master-rated riflemen managed to do while firing from only 30 feet up and not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

Sturdivan was lying, or else blundering badly. He was counting any shot that struck the target silhouette or the target board as a "hit," regardless of how far off it was from the head and neck area or from the center of mass area. If you ever bother to do some primary research and look at the actual target boards themselves, you will see how dishonest Sturdivan's description of the shots is (you can see them here: https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-15).

You will see that on the second and third target boards, i.e., their second and third shots/shot sets, nearly all the shots landed far from the head and neck area and far from the center of mass. Only one of the 14 shots fired at the second and third target boards landed in the head and neck area, and another one of the 14 shots landed about 3 inches below the center of mass. Moreover, the one shot that hit in the head and neck area was on the second target board/second shot. Not one of the shots at the third target board/third shot landed in the head and neck area or in the center of mass. You'd never know these facts to read Sturdivan's deceptive summary.

So the three Master-rated riflemen went one for 14 on their second and third shots, i.e., the one shot that landed in the head and neck area on the second target board/second shot. Yet, your alleged lone gunman, who barely qualified in the second of three qualification categories on his best day at the range in the Marine Corps while using a semi-automatic rifle and firing from a level position, supposedly went two for two on his second and third shots.

Sturdivan was neither lying nor blundering. Strikes within the target silhouette were considered as hits. Your claim that Hendrix and Staley both went one for three is FALSE.

BTW, Miller's third shot with the iron sights missed the target board completely. That means it missed the target silhouette on the target board and also missed the target board itself. But you guys want us to believe that Oswald hit JFK's head with his alleged third shot while supposedly using the iron sights (because his scope would have been worthless due to misalignment). Yet, a Master-rated rifleman wildly missed the head on the target silhouette with his third shot using the iron sights, even though he was firing from only 30 feet up, not 60 feet up, and was not firing through a half-open window in cramped quarters.

Miller scored two shots to the head within his three shots using the iron sights. He got off those three shots in 4.45 seconds.

[Michael T. Griffith]

The whole early missed shot hypothesis is unsupported by any witness testimony. The whole shooting test was a complete waste of time. The problem is the Marksmen weren’t duplicating what LHO had actually accomplished. They were trying to duplicate what the media thought had taken place—three shots. LHO only fired twice. Two shots are what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses stated was the number of shots. LHO was not hurried to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds instead LHO aimed for the first shot and then had 5.6 seconds to aim and fire the second shot. The constraint of the 2.3 second cycle time of the carcano played no role. 

This is a perfect example. The first shot by all found the target. After that they were just jacking rounds downrange as fast as they could to try and duplicate a faulty assumption. Nothing more.

When firing at the first target board, placed to duplicate the distance of the alleged lone gunman's first shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area of the target silhouette, while the remaining six shots hit in the center of mass of the silhouette.

But, when firing at the second target, representing the alleged second shot, only one of their seven shots landed in the head and neck area, while all the rest landed far from the center of mass, with three missing the silhouette entirely.

The headshot was not a great feat marksmanship; it almost was a missed shot, just that close to missing JFK’s head and possibly hitting SA Kellerman.

Never mind that all three of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to hit the head of the target silhouette with their third shot, right? You guys are incredible. You can't admit any fact that contradicts, much less refutes, your version of the shooting.

So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.

FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.

Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.

Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.

[Jack Nessan]

Never mind that all three of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to hit the head of the target silhouette with their third shot, right? You guys are incredible. You can't admit any fact that contradicts, much less refutes, your version of the shooting.

So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.

FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.

Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.

Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.

So you're another one of the tiny minority of WC apologists who claim that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. Well, that's one way to deal with the impossibility of his alleged shooting feat! Just scratch out one of the shots, pretend it didn't happen! This is the kind of zany reaching that you guys have to do to increase the shooting time for your supposed single assassin.

What minority? The WC and the HSCA believing the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots? That is what you think is a minority?

I did not know Josiah Thompson was a WC Apologist.

It is not removing one shot it is realizing there never was a third shot.

It obvious why you have a problem with only two shots because it totally erases your whole show. You need the three-shot scenario to make your conspiracy claims. The headshot tripe and the whole necktie nonsense would be all gone. All of your fantasy papers on fantasy scenarios would become part of the sad history surrounding the assassination. What exactly do you have left to write about? How about the first shot hit both JFK and JBC. The second shot was the fatal headshot. End of story.

FYI, all of your leading WC apologists say that three shots were fired.

All of them are wrong. Reminds me of Lemmings going over the edge. It took a leading CT to point out the evidence that exists that proves there was only two shots, and they still don’t get it. They still can’t put it all together. This whole conversation should have ended in 1967 with the release of Six Seconds in Dallas. That should have signaled there was problem with the belief there was three shots fired instead of just two. 

Good point though, and that has led to 70% of America believing it was a conspiracy, because these three shot scenarios fly in the face of what is seen on the Zapruder Film and what the eyewitnesses stated took place. Two shots are believable and provable.

“Leading”. Who is it that is leading anyone? Now that is something to laugh about. It appears to me the three shot believers can’t get out of their own way. Not one of those scenarios work with what is known about the rifle or visible on the Zapruder film. Not one of them have ever proven there even was a third shot. How do you talk about something that is totally hypothetical? They are just the flip side to a Conspiracy Nut. Making unproven claims about something that never happened.

The WC only stated there was three shots because they found three shells, but gave all the reasons they thought there were only two shots, including media influence. An early missed shot that 100% of the eyewitness do not support is the best scenario that is proposed? With a 7 second window, even the WC allowed only for a shot as early as Z185. That still does not account for the wounding of JBC and JFK other than SBT.

Josiah Thompson wrote in his book Six Seconds in Dallas that LHO only fired two shots. CE 543 was never fired in the rifle. That was his observation.

Any reasonable, objective person can readily see that the WC's rifle test proves that the alleged shooting feat was far beyond Oswald's rifle skills and was even beyond the rifle skills of the three Master-rated riflemen. Ditto for the 1967 CBS rifle test, which involved 12 experienced riflemen firing from the correct height and at a moving target sled.

No, the tests only were undertaken to try and prove it was possible to fire three shots in 5.6 seconds. They should have been testing the ability to accurately fire two shots in 5.6 seconds. Which is what LHO accomplished. Accuracy was noted but was not initially the object of the test. 

How about at least produce some kind of proof there even was a third shot instead of all the disproven theories you post. Not one thing you post is relevant if there is not a third shot. Not one.

Also, "the vast majority of the eyewitnesses" did not say that only two shots were fired.

Yes, they did. Sorry you did not know that. Maybe stop messing with these oddball theories and read what the people watching the motorcade stated happened.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's worth noting that in her first interviews, which took place between 12/4 and 12/16, before she was threatened with deportation, Marina Oswald said that Oswald had never left or returned to their house carrying a rifle, that he had never mentioned any intention to practice shooting, that to her knowledge he had never done any target practice, and that she had never even seen him holding the rifle (CE 1785; CE 1401, p. 286; CE 1790; CE 1403, p. 735).

And I see we still have WC apologists floating the zany theory that the alleged lone gunman was foolish enough to fire long before Z166, that he was stupid enough to fire when a traffic-signal pole or tree limb was near or in his center of aim, that his first shot therefore hit the pole/limb and missed the entire limousine, and that he then went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from Z210-Z313. None of the WC's Master-rated riflemen were able to go 2/2 in 5.6 seconds.

We have two or three folks who go even farther off the deep end. One of them says "Oswald" fired only two shots, while two others claim that "Oswald" fired two shots, that he missed JFK's head, and that the head shot was fired accidentally by Secret Service agent George Hickey in the follow-up car, never mind that no one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot, never mind that all of his ammo was accounted for, and never mind that one of the head shots hit near the right temple (as confirmed by the skull x-rays and by Dr. Burkley to White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff) and exited the back of his head.

The Head Shot from the Front
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19GwhnIVGHlrffoyM_T242fF_J9v4QeQl/view

[Gerry Down]

Disassembling the rifle destroyed the sighting of it.

Why would anyone think that? I believe that the disassembly for reducing the length to the size of the bag only involves taking the wooden stock off of the rest of the rifle. The scope stays mounted to the receiver/barrel assembly. So no alignment of the scope is changed relative to the barrel and where it would shoot. If LHO zeroed in the rifle for the (~100’) distance involved for the Walker attempt, then it should have stayed pretty much like that and been just fine for the distances involved in Dealey Plaza.

Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?

[Charles Collins]

Is this true? Could the timber stock be removed and reattached without disassembling the metal components of the rifle, most notably by not having to remove the scope from the barrell?

Three screws need to be removed. After the first screw is removed, the band that holds the upper hand guard on is simply slid off of the wooden pieces. Then the second and third screws are removed and the trigger guard is removed. And then the barrel/receiver assembly is then simply lifted out of the wooden stock. The scope mount is screwed directly into the metal receiver. Therefore, neither the scope or it’s mount are affected by removing the wooden stock.





Here’s a link to a how-to video. It isn’t the exact same model. Nor does it have a scope mounted. But the disassembly/reassembly of the wooden stock would be the same for the gun found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.